they only get a few minutes of it but it does that by looking at the ordinary man who made up the revolution. not so much the famous founding fathers of which we have all heard, but the kind of small farmers, small planters, maybe artisans who navy own enough tools and enough material or shopkeepers who own enough stock in goods and enough credits to qualify to vote. these are men who qualify to vote for their representative or delegate to their colonial legislature in the colonial period, but it never occurs to them that they might themselves run for office except may be very minor local offices. ..

>> one comes out by a paper put out in the late 1740s, and it quotes a lot of english authorities. doesn't attribute them, just runs articles as they tended to do, and sometimes they said these are from our great authors, but didn't tell you which ones. this is a little piece of how great civil government was. "it's a blessing that main kind can -- mankind can enjoy." this is 17th century englishman

from the 1680s, the original, that they should really think highly of government and insist it operate, "for the happiness and security of all, and if there be any form of government amongst men where the supreme magistrate is not vested with enough power to protect the people and promote their prosperity, or if there be any such constitution that enables the prince to injury and oppress the subject, such constitution are inconsistent with civil society." well, part of this is familiar that you can't have the prince oppressing the people. part is less familiar, and, in fact, it's worth noting the threat of oppressive government here comes in second to the danger of incapable government. [laughter] this was not -- [laughter] okay. this was not an endorsement of governments that governed least as some later thinkers promote,

but an endorsement of government that was accountable, effective, mindful of obviously gageses to execute the laws that protected the small people from the excessive ambitions of the great or would be greats, and about that quote, i just want to say the reason epg lish people felt strongly on behalf of government, you know, in the 17th century, they could have got rid of the monarchy, but they stuck with the monarchy because they found the king and his laws extremely useful in dealing with the other o prosessers in their lives namely the great lords and gentry, and the main experience of the middling people, the rural population of the early modern period was one of being pushed off the land where they had lived for generations as the great lords and the great gentry amassed more of the land and

extended their notion of property rights to exclude the use of common fields or the use of forests or rivers so as to reorganize -- and this was called improvement. it's a word like development. it's improvement if you are a certain person in this system, but for other people, households were pushed either into becoming landless wage earners working on other people's farms, or wage earners in the textile mills in the rural industry or they went off to london or those who wanted land, they came to british north america; right? where they hoped to gain a firmer hold so in that struggle there's some centuries that shift in the use of land. what was useful to many of the middling and ordinary people was often the law. they pooled their money and prevent what the enclosure or improvement that the lord or the

great gentry landlord wanted so that was the reason they liked government. it sometimes worked for them and monarchy worked partly because you could see even the king could own too much and everyone would agree with that. once you agree to that, then the lords can own too much. i mean, that's this top level that allowed -- there's a concept of too much inherit in the world of monarchy. the second quotation brings us to north america. of course, there were people who wanted to be lords of the land in north america too and the friends of the king got given vast estates, lord baltimore, lord fairfax, the penn family, any number of family and friends and creditors of the king, but it turned out they couldn't make money because there was too much land and not enough settlers for them so you had to give breaks to people to come settle your land and build farms there.

that changes as the sea board increasingly is patented and settled up so what you find in the 18th century is a new effort on the behalf of the proprior tores, often now the children and grandchildren of the original owners of the land to get rent, and one of the places this is going on is the county of east jersey where some two dozen proprietors, now mostly the grandchildren of the those, are trying to collect rents, back rents, and there are huge struggles for decades in new jersey through the course and over the court system and there are also riots which break out when the courts do the unpopular thing so this quotation is from a man in new jersey, and this is my reference to religion to fit

with my fellow panelists. this is griffin jenkins, and evangelical christian, press tearian, and he writes a brief vindication of the purchasers, the people who bought the land, against the proprietors in a christian manner in 1746. the strictly just in all thy dealing with man and not discharged from the duty of right -- right choseness. it was the beginning of misrule and mistake that happened among us. i think it is playing cause to all men that it was covetedness of the proprior tores as you call them into the nation of the poor people. he reasoned you have to have a reason to improve your land and make more money, just on the

face of it, wasn't the wonderful thing to do and said the proprietors, if there was not some desirable entertainment through the flesh, you would never seek these improvements. [laughter] the notion there is a morally correct amount of ambition that the small farmers tend to aim at which is what they call a competency and maybe set up your kids the same way, and then there's that unacceptable amount of ambition, and that's often called unbounded evers. [laughter] that's a particularly evangelical voice, but you can find secular voices saying similar things, even someone like benjamin frankly and self-made go-get-him kind of guy and how different that is from wanting a competency. the final quote makes a lead to

the revolution, and this is the quotation from an almanac written for the year 1767, just the beginning the dispute with england. it had the sugar and stamp act and now is describes what the movement's about. says the patriot aim is, "to prevent the exclusion of that detestable maximum of european policy amongst us that the common people who are three quarters of the world must be kept in ignorance that they may be slaves to the other quart who live in magnicent. what was the sugar act? it was a low passed to favor the british sugar planters, this

wealthy group of men who live in london and have members in parliament. what's the stamp october? an act to pass taxes from the rich, mainly the british, to the poor, which you always are when you're about to be taxed, and similarly the tea act. what is it? it's favoritism by parliament for the shareholders of the east india tea company. there's the government being oppressive, the parliament, and i think it's important to understand what the revolution was about for many ordinary patriots was this effort to set up governments of their own, that their problem was that their governments lacked the power to protect the people and promote their prosperity, and that to understand the movement soully as antigovernment is to understand it really halfway and partly from the point of view of thee most well to do who are

always the ones who can do without less government, and not from the point of view of the many people who made the revolution happen. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, barbara clark smith. next is john ragosta. >> thank you all for coming. i got started on this project several years back when i was living in coal pepper county, several hours north of here, and i became interested in the coal pepper minutemen, some of barbara's ordinary people, the classic farmers you read about in high school, shoulder the guns, marched 200 miles and win the first significant battle in virginia during the war, and as i looked at the minmen, i found a man named william. he's an interesting guy. he is a baptist minister. now, this is colonial virginia.

we still have an established church of england. he's a baptist minister, captain of one of the battalions, and he was put in jail in 1773 for preaching the gospel. that's a curious problem. why is he will to pick up his began and march? i discovered three things. the first thing i discovered that in fact the persecution of this was a lot worse than historians led us to believe. we all know again perhaps from college or high school that we still had taxes to pay anglican ministers. if you a baptist or press per tierian, you paid taxes. that was the half of it. we started a as the baptists were growing, almost a third of the population by the time of the revolution, an effort to put them down through physical

persecution. what do i mean? throwing rocks at ministers, horse whipping them, dragging them down from the pulpit by their hair or their legs, dunking baptist -- they liked to dunk the baptist. the baptists really liven things up. they take him to the closest body of water, he wants to to be baptized, they dunk him, do you believe? and they dunk him ago until they almost drowned. one case there was a meeting going on, and through a hornet's nest into the meeting, another case, they throw a snake. i speculate in the book it was a copperhead. this is virginia, these are farmers you throw a black snake in, they are not really going to notice. he was a copperhead, they are mean, it's the kind of thing you throw on baptists. [laughter] now, again, the persecution got

worse and by 1768 they are jailing ministers and as i mentioned william gets jailed. by the time of the revolution over 50 people jailed for preaching or disturbing the peace which was the same thing if you were not an anglican, and the conditions were quite poor. james ireland is jailed in coal pepper. where he is jailed in the 19th century became a baptist church, sort of interesting, but these baptist ministers realize this was part of their witness. they can preach from the cells and people would listen and get more converts. james goes to the window of his cell to preach to the crowd outside, someone urinates in his face. john weatherford preaches from his cell, reaches out his arms, praying men come with knives and cut his arms. he had scars until he died. people would gather to hear

preaching and anglicans would ride through the crowd. if you had a horse come at you with a man on horse back with a horse whip. this is dangerous and frightening and they would beat the living daylights of the blacks in the crowd, free or slaved. this is the kind of thing that's going on. this heightens the question why is william willing to fidgeted for the people doing this to him? well, that leads to the second discovery that it was fairly simple the the dissenters made it clear to the establishment leaders, the people leading the revolution, you want us to fight, you give us religious freedom, and it was conditional, and they said that's going to be the deal, and over the course of the revolution, there's a back and forth between these people and the new state, patrick henry and edward and kerry, and they eventually get religious freedom. i won't talk too much because

it's in the book. i'll talk both the third thing, as i suspect many of you are interested in the third discovery. if you deal were religious freedom, we'll fight, pick up our guns, march, we'll fight, but bewant religious freedom, what are you getting for this deal? how do you define that religious freedom? what i discovered is that these evangelicals, 18th century evangelical baptist and presbyterians and methodists coming on the scene in virginia, what they got was a very robust, we say almost modern religious freedom in their minds. give you two examples. first of all on the christian nation issue, is this going to be a christian nation we're fighting for? the evangelicals said absolutely not. if the government has the power to make this a christian nation, they have the power to make it a presbyterian nation or a baptist nation or a catholic nation and

said the government doesn't have this power. government has no power to regulate religion in that manner, and so their petitions to the government would say things like we are fighting for religious liberty for jews and christians of every denominations, and it goes on and on. mind you, there's not a lot of turks in 18th century virginia. [laughter] these people understood that we're creating a nation for the long term and these people have every right to freedom of religion like we do. they also thought, and especially john leeland, one of the great leaders, one of the most popular preachers in virginia at the time thought it was an oxy mormon to talk about a christian nation or an o bomb nation. if i get preferment or even protection because i'm a christian, it's a specie of

idolatry. okay? i worship god because i worship god. if i get anything from the government for worshiping god, it's idolatry, so leeland is preaching. jesus says the regime is not of this world. give to caesar what is caesars, keep government out, and now john fea talks more about that i'm sure as his book points out, things change. i'll answer questions about that, but for the 18th centuries evangelicals in virginia at the first amendment, no christian nation. second is separation of church and state making it clear we want the government out. now, mind you this is different. jefferson wants the church out of the government. these people want the government out of the church, but they come together in their views. presbyterians right no law

should pass to connect church and state in future. a preacher says the unlawful cohabitation between church and state which is so often looked upon as holy wedlock must now suffer a separation and be forever put us under. the notion we hear from the right wing that secularism is invented in the 20th century and church and state are made up. these are evangelicals saying we will have separation of church and state to fight for the government. i'll conclude with a short comment from the very end of the book. during the american revolution, virginia's religious dissenters demanded religious freedom in return for their full support for mobilization. the resulting negotiations changed virginia's quality such that after the war, efforts to reinvigorate the establishment failed and dissenters ushered into law jefferson's statute for

establishing religious freedom. it is clear that the current legal and historic litture failed to adequately to listen to the voice of the virginia dissenters, and they must be heard. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, rag john ragosta and now john fea. >> thank you. usually when the talk is advertised with this title, most people come to the talk already with their minds made up, yes or no, and then they expect me to sort of confirm their belief. [laughter] one of the first questions i get asked about the title of my book is well, is the answer yes or no, was america founded as a

christian nation? i approach the question as a historian. one of the things that bothered me is the way this question is politicized. the founding era has been politicized by the right and also by the left. cherry picking from the past to try to find something to institute their own needs and present agenda. i like the quote from the famous historian who said, "all this to littization of history is like indoctrine by historical example." this is what happened. as a historian, i look at the question, again, to say that i'm completely objecteddive would probably be a myth or probably not be true. i don't think any historian can be, but i am trying to cut through some of the to -- politicize of this nation.

is america a christian nation? i think the answer is it depends how you define the question. [laughter] it depends what the meaning of "is" is. [laughter] you know, what is a christian nation? how do you define christian in this case? how do you define nation? how do you define founded? there's many on the right and the christian nationalists who, you know, argue, well, america was founded in 1620 when the pilgrims came over and they tried to establish a christian civilization, and thus there it is, the christian nation and so forth. of course, we have john's evidence here that suggests in virginia there was clearly no emphasis at least from jefferson, madison, and all of those evangelical baptists who supported them that they were trying to create a christian nation so let me just for the sake of time here, let me throw out four or five very quick conclusions that i've drawn about the role of religion in the american founding, the

religion of the founding fathers and so forth. the book is divided into three parts. the first thing i try to do is to try to trace the history of the idea that america was founded as a christian nation or america is a christian nation so i trace this from 1800 all the way up to the present in the first four chapters. the fourth chapter of the book deals with the christian nationalists today. some of you may be familiar with the people, names like david barton, peter marshall and peter manual and so forth. i tried to be as a his historian give them the benefit of the doubt where possible and lay out their views. of course, i talk about again throughout much of the 19th century it's clear that americans always understood themselves as being part of a christian nation. now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe the constitution in some ways established america as a christian nation, but they often saw themselves as part of a christian nation, and this was not even a contested issue.

you know, people just assumed, you know, of course, we're part of a christian nation so the first point i want to make really is that again americans have always understood themselves, especially in the 19th century and early portions of the 20th century that the dominant position whether they were right or wrong or whether their position remitted the views of the -- represented the views of the founders or not, they clearly believed they were part of a christian nation, especially in the early 19th century. second thing back to the revolution now for a second. ministers regularly appealed to the bible both the loyalist ministers and the evangelical patriotic ministers. they use the the bible to justify their positions for revolution. now it's really interesting about the pro-patriot ministers of the day. they often, you know, had fun playing around with the bible. you know, things like slavery throughout the nation of the christian church is understood

as sort of slavery to sin, slavery to our sin naturings. suddenly slavery takes on political means with verses like that and things like liberty which is freedom from sin, freedom from the devil or say tin becomes liberty and friem from george the iii so there's a lot of sort of -- i don't want to call it manipulating because i don't want to be in a debate about how to interpret the bible here because it's out of my pay grade a little bit, but clearly the ways in which they interpret the bible, many of the patriots, do not conform in the ways of which the christian church a millennium before interpreted the passages. the anglicans are biblical literalists. romans 13 says submit yourself to government because government comes from god and says in that chapter we should pay our

tribute or taxes and submit to the authority. there's this huge debate over the meaning of the bible in these passages, and these ministerings in many ways are duking it out over the right interpretation of the bible. third, the constitution clearly is a godless document. now, i said this on a radio interview a couple weeks ago with the conservative talk radio host, and he fired back at me, no, it says it the year of our lord 1787, so it does mention god. [laughter] you know, fair enough, and actually he made an interesting comment which i need to think about the the fact they date, use the name of the lord when they said the date like that says something about the culture i i think of the day, but nevertheless, nothing about god there, sixth amendment, no religious establishment, first amendment, freedom of religion

so there's not a lot of things. john mccain in the 2008 election says the constitution establishes america as a christian nation. well, your hard-pressed to make that argument based on the text. now, however, if you look at 12 of the 13 state constitutions and virginia is the big exception to this because they are the ones as john pointed out that established religious freedom, separation of church and state and so forth. if you look at these stasis constitutions and i don't have a political ax to grind, but it fascinates me that almost all of them have very, very specific religious christian, if not protestant qualifications for holding office so you have pennsylvania, for example, the most radical democratic constitution of them all, and in order to serve the government in pennsylvania, you have to uphold the devine inspiration of the old and new testaments. you know, you have to believe in a god. vermont is the one i love.

177 # -- 1776 constitution of the independence of vermont, now this bashing of liberalism, upholds the idea all people serving in government must believe in the inspiration of the devine old and new testaments, obey the sabbath, and be a protestant, catholics, jews, forget about it. they can't serve in government. it's referred to as a federalist argument; right? at what -- did the constitution leave religion out because that's what the states were supposed to deal with? real quick just to conclude here, all the founding fathers believed in religious liberty. you can have an established church like in new england or connecticut and allow people to worship the way they want without persecution. this is what gets me in trouble,

especially those on the left, but the founding fathers i argue in the book were not diocese. i'll drop a bomb there and leave it there and we can debate that in the q&a and finally all the founding fathers i argue believed that religion, even christianity in some daises was important to producing a vir choose republic and making moral citizens, benevolent citizens and so forth. they clearly were not believing they were, you know, they didn't want religion to play any role in the government or at least i should say in the culture so i'll stop there. [applause] >> i'd like to thank the authors for doing a great job staying within the time limits allowing time for questions. a few administrative points.

i want to thank m. revack and company out of west virginia, and remind you the book festival events are free and we'd like to keep it that way. please consider a donation. there's envelopes in the back or donate online. thank you. there's questions and please because this is broadcasted, there's microphones going around. i will point to a question, and then please wait for the microphone before you answer so questions, hands. in the front here. >> this has been very fascinating to me. i'm from maryland though where we're very proud -- [inaudible] i was wondering whether we treated the dissenters any better and whether our constitution that has the --

[inaudible] >> well, it did treat better, depends on when. by 1690 maryland found the catholics out and became an anglican establishment. during the revolution, where virginia is no longer persecuting dissenters, maryland starts to jail them during the revolution. [laughter] actually in my book what i talk about is virginia is unique this this regard because in north carolina, maryland, south carolina, the dissenters become loyalist and have to stick with the king because these people running things here are persecuting us. virginia is unique. it's a different pattern. the fact of the matter is most historians and importantly members of the supreme court appointment out that virginia is the model for the first amendment, not maryland where they become loyalists. >> during the american revolution, the first -- z maryland constitution after

1776 does collect a tribute or tax to support the christian religion so, you know, think still keep a quasd-establishment for a little. >> in the front row. >> thank you. this is for ms. smith. i have to ask, the east new jersey proprietorships was that part of new amsterdam, and if it was, have those smart dutchman sold those whips to other people? [laughter] >> this was part of new york, the duke of yorks ownership of what had been new amsterdam but was also new jersey, and so there were certainly dutch settlers in the area, but it was largely an english dispute going on about the land.

>> second row. >> i'm from connecticut and most people may not realize in the south that baptist denomination began in providence, rhode island and there's a strong con ting gent in -- and the whole idea of the fire wall and what i want to know is the story of the 1200 pound cheese true? another -- [laughter] another -- the leader of the baptist was leeland -- >> it's the same fellow. >> john leeland, so is it true, the 1200 pound cheese was sent -- thank you. >> he's a big cheese. [laughter] >> i think jefferson was serving this thing in state dinners for years. >> it rotted and they finally had to take it out. it's true. [laughter] >> can you comment fully about the significance of that letter to the baptists for those who

don't know? >> we could be here for a long time. aisle writing another book to address these issues and some of the issues that john is here, but let me say one thing. what you have to understand is connecticut has an establishment after the revolution and john is referring to all of that. that changes. connecticut eliminates establishment andrew the influence of the jefer sewnian republicans and what happens is you have 12 states with establishments and they all are eliminated over the course of the 19th century. in rhode island they put the statute into their constitution, never say it's a statute, but it's word for word from the virginia statute. the question is who is influencing these things, and that's why part of the new book is about when his tore yaps and supreme court justices say, no, it's about virginia. they're right. they're right. connecticut influenced rhode

island, many of the places adopt a virginia attitude, but that particular letter is part of that. it's jefferson trying to encourage the connecticut people to develop a virginia-type separation of church and state. >> john fea, would you like to add? >> yeah, sure, just to add to that i think some of these -- you're right -- some of these clauses disappear. some rather quickly. i think south carolina continues to affirm itself as a protestant state up to 1851 i think is in their constitution so new england remains an establishment, an established church until 1833 so, you know, it's a matter of interpretation on this appointment. some could argue, you know for 57 years or so in new england, you do have an established church, but, of course, the other argument, the organization for progress is that clearly these things eventually go away, so, yeah, john is absolutely right on that.

>> how about in the back with the glasses. >> this is for all three. what i've heard so far deals with the -- seems to deal with the christian inhas been tans of north america, clearly the majority in the periods we're talking about, and i'm wondering what documentation you might have come across at the beginning point in history for the presence of jews and non-believers, atheists, whatever, a word you might use for them and along with documentation of the presence, what did you find in terms of their stand on religion and

government? [laughter] >> oh, this is on me? well, you're talking about -- there are certainly some groups, some jewish communities, individuals who don't count themselves as christianment we're not even beginning to talk about native peoples or african-americans about whose religion, no one is deeply concerned in this time period, just getting to be something that white america's thinking about, and there certainly are people who are rational christians in the 18th century infliewpsed by the enlightenment who look at the bible as they look at all else through the light of reason and may have doubts. on the other hand, they tend to be very quiet about their doubts precisely because you are prohibited from participation in a variety of things. if you are a doubter so thomas

jefferson part of the reason he becomes so strongly of church and states is he intends william and mary and has enlightened professors there who all of whom have to subscribe not 39 articles of the anglican religion so there's not a discussion to take place in class about rational religion although reading all the philosophical readings and one knows he becomes part of this world where people are looking again at religion the same they as received institutions of government and saying is this sensible or is this part of a system that tells people you won't understand and this is too hard for you and basically leaves kings and what jefferson would talk about as priest craft, the clergy supporting

regimes and are supported by the regimes in turn so that announcement is taking place, and there's a lot of people, who knows what they actually believe, but you don't -- as far as i know you don't find groups of people organized as free thinkers or atheists pressing for rights because they wouldn't have gotten them. goferson is an interesting one because he does -- if you want to sort of see the conversation that happened, look add jefferson running for president in the year 1800 and at the denunciation of him as an a supposed atheist, any number of things. i mean, there's just this unbelievably hysterical kris schism, especially in federalist new england of what it will be like when we get this president who is not really christian. the notion of setting up and

organizing for rights would have been a losing proposition. >> well, i think actually there are thousands of jewings in the country at the time of the american revolution. in fact, one of the great financiers is jew ire. what people are saying about them and what they are saying, there's two messages about them. i have three quotes and there's more and people understand what we're fighting for is going to affect the jews, the mahameds, turks, and even up dues, not a lot of hindus in 18th century virginia, but there's a recognition of that's what we're talking about. during the ratification process, people realize there's no reference to christianity in here and the reference john makes about the year of our lord, that was added by a clerk after the constitution was voted on and the 55 delegates had left. [laughter]

people, you know, people are complaining this is not a christian document, and we might have a jewish president. [laughter] my answer to that is they lost. they lost. they recognized that in fact the constitution says nothing about people's rights. whether they are jewish mahamed and so on. the other question is whether the jewish people, and we do not have a lot of turks. we have people who are atheists, but as barbara says, who knows. there is interesting stuff from the jewish community about religious freedom. the most famous is the synagogue in providence writing to george washington saying you're the new president, what's going to happen to us. washington writes back and washington's religion is sort of complicated and interesting and he writes back one of his -- i'd say most aggressive defenses of religious freedom and separation of church and state because washington tends to move

fairly -- he moves around depending on who he talks to. i don't want to give the wrong impression. i think washington has a good attitude towards these things, but he speaks to who he's speaking to, but his letter to the truro jewish community, this back and forth where the jews say, look, this is a new constitution, we have complete right, and he said absolutely, in this country, you have nothing to fear. >> john? >> real quick. yeah, i agree with everything that's been said. on the other hand, in most of the states with the exception of virginia at least in the first 25-30 years and say this as a historian, jews could not run for office or hold, you know, any sort of civil position, position in the government even though they had the freedom, you know, religious freedom. in some ways religious freedom to worship, but certainly not to participate in government until as john mentioned before a lot of these -- a lot of these stipulations are removed by the

19th century. >> thank you. in the front? >> this is for john. you opened it up so you know -- >> i tell my students when you talk about the founding father's religion, the founding fathers believed as if they had some unified position on their religious faith. there's also a fundamental difference i think between someone's religious qirkses, their personal convictions and the way they think of the relationship between religion and government. surely john's evangelical baptists are devout evangelical christians arguing for the separation of church and state, logical fallacy there just because somebody is a christian doesn't necessarily mean that they advocate for a christian

nation, and i think in some cases vice versa. the answer though about the dies , jefferson, franklin, john adams, and george washington and look at more christian outer doux founders, john w witherspoon and adams all believed in a believe there was a god who not only created the world but also sustained the world and even at times may intervene in that world that the god created so in the 18th century, deeiests came out of, you know, sort of christian churches and so forth, you know, but deism and providence in the 18th century are incompatible

terms. you can't believe in a god who creates the universe and steps back to allow it to run by natural law or laws of morality and so forth, you can't believe that and at the same time believe this god can actively intervene in his or her creation, so the classic example is benjamin frapping lin. if you read his autobiography, he tries to refute them and is convinced by them and became a thorough going deos. certainly he doesn't become a christian and certainly rejects the trinity, rejects the inspiration of the old and new testaments and so forth and may even reject the resurrection of jesus chris. one quick example is during the constitutional convention, you

know, in this heated debate, literally and figtively, in the heat, late july, doors are boarded up to remain secret, but there's a debate going on and some of you remember this from your civics plan, the plans and compromises and this gets so heated that benjamin frankly says we have to pray, call upon god to reconcile the differences. of all people, benjamin franklin. [laughter] that's turned down by the committee and there's a great story where hamilton supposedly said i deny franklin's petition because the united states of america will not be reliant upon any foreignth hour. [laughter] whether hamilton said that or not, i don't think he did, but it's still a great line. [laughter] nevertheless, it's actually turned down not because they

reject the idea. they had a minister in the congress. one of the reasons they turn it down they didn't have enough money to pay the guy to pray for them. [laughter] the point is here's franklin, a guy who, you know, he doesn't call upon god to intervene in some ways, so that's my argument at least, yeah. [laughter] they were not christians, the major five were not. they occupied some middle ground. >> i'll remember mrs. scott's 7th grade history class. her discussion about note number 17. my question is, well, since i moved to god's acre, a quote from deism, isn't it? [laughter] how were the virginian

delegation, particularly mr. jefferson able to convince particularly those in the north to accept number 17 as the argument for the first amendment? >> again, that's the next book. [laughter] i think there's -- let me give you a simple answer and i'd be happy to go into it at length. you have a difference of opinion, and most view the first amendment as a compromise and you need a middle ground. i think, no, not a middle ground. i worked in washington as a a lobbyist for 20 years. you need something both groups get. somebody has to get -- let's make it simple. there's the hamiltons who was very into christian language and documents. they say we want strict separation of church and state. the others say we want to keep the federal government out of the state establishments what john is referring to.

perfect compromise. we get a very, very strong first amendment saying the federal government is going to have a separation of church and state. the federal government is going to state out of religion. what the states get and the christian promoters get we can can do whatever we want in the states. that changes after the civil war. you know, i'm sorry, virginia, the south lost. [laughter] i realize that's a shocker. [laughter] after the civil war, these things get incorporated, but may argument is that's the compromise. the federal government will have a virginia provision. >> the yellow shirt in the back. over there.

>> this is for ms. clark smith. you mentioned at the start of your presentation, you talked about some of the rural sort of meddling people not really taking an interest or thinking about possibly running the government, they just wanted the freedom. when did that change and how much did money have to do with it? >> oh, well, money had nothing to do with that. [laughter] if you believe that. that's really the shift. historians say that's the shift between the kind r kind of republican ideas of the democratic ideas. the srb certainly during the colonial period there's a certain kind of person who is born to lead; right? you're born into a certain class. if you're in that class, you can have the kind of education, the kind of leisure, you have cosmopolitan outlook, you know, you know enough about the world

to go and make laws and rules, and the assumption is that ordinary farmers know enough to choose who will go, but they don't know enough to go be a legislature themselves. now, in some ways, that's -- there's a notion therefore that they defer. the word they use is deference. if you are an ordinary person, defer to your superiors and let them rule. if you're a farmer, you don't want to spend six weeks when you should be planting, in the capitol city making a relatively unspornt group of laws. it's not entirely deference, but this is the thing that gentlemen do. this is the thing gentlemen do gets eroded into the run up of the revolution because as the men are more and more active and involved into the kind of negotiations and compromises with their superiors, they become prominent and they get

practice at serving on local committees, and committees then enforcing important decisions to do with the revolution, and a large part of my book is questioning who exactly is leading whom during the course of the revolution because our notion there's leaders and ideas and then the other ordinary people kind of reason to the ideas and they agree and they join a movement, that may be true in ordinary times, i'm not sure it's actually true in ordinary times, but not true in revolutionary times that a revolutionary time is when there's an am ambiguity of who is leading whom and my sense is people like thomas overson, what i admire about the famous founders is these are people who can follow, people who are in actual representative relationships with large numbers of their fellows, and that if

their number of elites choose not to follow the ordinary people because they don't want to be in a movements with farmers and people who don't know anything and who are the wrong sort, so there's a risk that the elite are taking in doing the ordinary, so in the course of the revolution, there is a certain opening up and so most of the state constitutions do broaden the suffrage somewhat so more free white men and in my home state of normings, but by accident, three white women, but nonetheless by accident, we could vote for a brief period of time and them in the 19th century, you get increasingly this idea by the time of jackson and the era of the common man that ordinary men can lead and elites pretend they were born in log cabins and things like that -- [laughter] which in the 18th century i was born in a palace, therefore i should rule is the logical thing to conclude. in the 19th century, you are

born in a log cabin, and in the 20th century, i want -- i want to do an exhibit on presidents who pretended to be cowboys because -- [laughter] that's the assumption that, you know, if you can drive a truck, you can -- and -- [laughter] no one ever actually ever believes it. that is you have to actually have gone to yale or that you have to have won over the money obviously, but, you know, once it's established that ordinary people too can serve money and power, and then they can be rulers too. >> teal shirt first.

>> how did we get to taking the oath of office and in a court of law put your hand on the bible? [applause] >> i know there's a big debate. we frequently at the smithsonian get letters from people telling us either we are totally right or totally wrong, and we never say anything about it so whether george washington said so help me god, and, you know, how many people were close enough to hear at the time and have you got a record from them? >> to be clear the constitution does not include it. that language is not in the constitution, and george washington almost certainly did not say so help me god, no only is there no evidence, but there's a minister who is present and writing about the inauguration and later becomes washington's great christian defender, arguing what a great christian washington is. if anybody was going to say washington said this, this person would have said this, and

he doesn't. he almost certainly didn't say it. oath on the bible, absolutely, that's been since 12 century centuries land, but what the -- england, but what the change is is that you don't have to. you know, i don't have a problem taking an oath on the bible, but a quaker will say don't make me do that, and that's what the change is. >> john fea, would you like to ad? >> yeah, i agree. there's a guy who e-mails me once a month asking me this question if i found more evidence to see whether or not washington has -- [laughter] has sworn on the -- >> has he sworn on the bible yet? [laughter] >> you know, have you dug up the evidence yet? [laughter] so -- >> and i think part of what is so interesting is the way the logic works, and i think we're obviously on the same page and thinking first we ask, saying expand your notion of who the founders are to include the ordinary people and baptists as

well as the famous men and think about their relationships with one another, but the notion that there is somewhere the smoking gun, one piece of evidence that will show what the founders reallimented was, and, you know, the problem is the founders really want, you know, they kept changing what they wanted. you know, how did they know, you know? they're in the middle of the tremendous upheaval and doing their best to lay down principles means certain things to them and not necessarily as a representative for massachusetts, pennsylvania, or virginia, and they are trying to pull this off, and then that changes so vastly over time so what you hear all the time are people talking about the 18th century, the revolutionary, the patriots, the founders as if there's some single position, and the position is every man for himself. you know, everyone's got a different idea, and their notion

of what liberty was is probably not something we actually would want or up deed be capable of. there may be aspects of what they wanted that we want to know about and study and model ourselves on and say there's good ideas there, but we don't live in this world where we're all farmers out where we're aiming at a competency and we have this generalized notion of how to treat neighbors, and we can limit our rulers because those rulers have a farm nearby, you know? if the big corporate owners had a farm nearby, you would have leverage on those people, but they don't, so it's a whole different world from the people who wrote this stuff. >> thank you, barbara. over here in the orange shirt. >> talking about the founders and can you speak to the

relevance of the private faith of the founders, say those who were at the constitutional convention. is their private faith relevant to the question of whether or not we're a christian nation, and if so, what is the relevance of it? >> yeah, i tried to suggest this when i was, you know, in response to a previous question. it certainly is a fascinating historical topic, what did the people believe about faith and so forth, but be careful about making a one-to-one correlation that if we can prove john adams was a christian, then we can prove it's a christian nation and justify a political nation upon returning to a golden age or the foundations we lost or something to that effect. again, i'll say it again, i think the evangelical baptists are a good example of devoutly

evangelical but don't uphold anything of a christian in this case in that regard. we have to be careful of that logical fallacy, that jump from personal belief to, you know, to the role of religion in government.

and with most of these founders, most of them wouldn't have thought on those terms, even the ones to were very devoutly christian and the ones who wanted it in -- wanted it to continue to be a christian nation in the sense that people would be christian did not think of it as an official designation. >> timing is everything. the book, a unitarian, things a lot of growing up in the congregational home and certainly sees himself as a christian based on that. here is a flip side to that. massachusetts constitution which gives a religious establishment in place because he believes religion and morality are absolutely essential to the good of massachusetts. this lasts until 1833. so john and i are arguing the flip side -- we are arguing the opposite side of each coin, but

i don't think we are in disagreement. >> we have time for one more question. >> i'm curious, we have members of the supreme court today that feel they should rule their decisions on what the people were thinking at the time of the constitution being written. now, where do you come down on something like that? [applause] [applause] >> if you get me appointed to the supreme court, i would be happy to set them straight. look, the question of original intent is one that historians by and large reject. i am also a lawyer, and so i don't reject it quite as quickly as historians do. the supreme court has said again and again -- and this is important and interesting. the one provision of the

constitution as should be bounded by history is the first amendment. d.c. that over and over again in the supreme court cases. so even the members of the court rejects the notion of original intent in most areas really focus on it in the first amendment. well, why should this particular area be something where we focus on history more than other areas? this is going to be in the national press. but as an answer to that, this was so revolutionary. until the american revolution every state had an official religion. every state promoted their own ministers and the kings religion was -- i forget the latin, but the kings religion is the people's religion. and so when that changes in america and then becomes the first amendment's -- and i'm obviously simplifying -- it is so revolutionary that i think it is one of the justifications for

why the supreme court justices so rapidly turn to history when we are talking about religious freedom. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank our speakers today. [applause] [applause] >> interested in american history? watch american history television on c-span three every weekend 48 hours a people and events that help document the american story. visit c-span.org / history for more information. >> i am of very unrepentant idealist, and i have understand -- come to understand hopeful lesson that realism and strength as blessings. this book, as much as anything is a gesture of gratitude to some of the people who have given me those gifts of hopefulness and idealism, the

teachers who give me a reason to believe in a brighter future, the family and strangers to give me a reason to believe in the power of kindness. the church ladies on the south side of chicago who gave me a reason to believe in the essence of faith. the voters, for that matter, who have given me a reason to believe in the politics of conviction and many, many others. a friend of mine describes this book as he has a love story which, for me, was the most powerful complement i could be given. i wanted to write about these people and the lessons they taught me for two reasons. first, because they have done more than help me succeed. they have helped me want to be better, be a better leader, better husband and parents, better citizen. secondly, because it is within each of us to pass these kinds of losses on to others. in fact, i think we have a generational responsibility to do just that. as some of you know, i grew up on the south side of chicago in

the 60's. most of that time on welfare. my mother and sister and i shared a two-bedroom tenement with our grandparents and various cousins who came and wince. my mother and sisters and i lived in one of those bedrooms in share is set a bunk beds. you could go from the top to the bottom bunk to the floor. every third night on the floor. sometimes violent public schools. but we had a community. those were days when every child was under the jurisdiction of every single adults on the block. remember that? you mess up in front of ms. jones and she would straighten you out as a few words and then call home, so you got it two times. i think what those adults are trying to get across to us was that they had a stake in ast. in a community was understanding the state that each of us has, not just in our own gene -- dreams as structures, but in our neighborhood as well. given the expectation that much of society has for poor black

people in circumstances like mine, i am not supposed to be where i am today. my story is improbable, but at the same time, a distinctly american story. and it may not get told as often as we would like in this country, but it gets told more often in this country than any other place on earth. it is a defining story. in 1970i get a break through a program called better chance to go to knowns academy. for me that was like landing on a different planet. i saw it for the first time the night before classes began in 1970. all by myself. my family did not see it until graduation day. i remember that the dress code in those days, the boys were jackets in class -- jackets to class's. when class time arrive my grandparents dollars. a jacket in the south side chicago is a windbreaker.

the first day of class all the other was reporting on blue blazers and tweed coats. here i was in my windbreaker. i figure it out. i struggle to find my footing, but there were teachers and other adults who reached out and helped. i went on to harvard college, the first and mike collins to go to college, harvard law school. i lived in chicago and los angeles and new york, the sudan. i have done business all over the world. i have had remarkable experiences, improbable once in the eyes of many. i have argued in the supreme court, hitchhike from cairo to cards to, counsel to presidents, served as the first black governor of massachusetts. my first time running for office. but as i reflect on each of these experiences each has its roots in the lessons that i try to write about in this book. these lessons has given me a sense of the possible which has made all the difference.

i right in the book about the transition from the south side chicago, the experience of trying to bridge these very different worlds for each one seemed to demand that he reject the other at the price of acceptance and how important it was for me to understand all smelly that that was a false choice. i write about the way the old ladies in big cats in search back home taught me to see that fate is not so much what you say you believe but how you live. i read about the extraordinary courage and strength of my wife, diane, through her first marriage to an abusive husband and the toll of my early days in public office and how her triumph has strengthened not just me, but thousands of others. time and time again experience is of great trial and turmoil have produced transcendence and

contributed to idealism. i want to defend and encourage that kind of idealism because i think it is what motivates people to make what seems improbable possible. that may sound corny to some of you, especially in washington d.c., but, in fact, there is nothing at all corny about hope. there is nothing at all in powering or ennobling about the alternative about pessimism. in fact, as governor it has been a sense of the possible that has helped us achieve many remarkable things against more than customary aunts. in these exceptionally cynical times i think people are hungry for something more positive and affirming that this steady diet of know that they get. it has implications on both policy and personal levels. on a policy level without a renewed sense of idealism, with

all of the risk of failure and disappointment that entails and a central part of the national character, a can-do spirit would be in jeopardy. none of the big challenges facing this country was successfully be faced. >> you can watch this and other programs online at book tv. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> the first book on my reading list was cleopatra. what a great insight in recounting her life. it was a book that was recommended to me. and so i decided to pick it up and read it and then continued with the strong woman theme, if you will, with elizabeth the first by margaret george. that is an e book. going back, doing these two,

cleopatra and elizabeth the first got me on to the historical and older novel type of approach. with my bible i am reading programs progress. it is just a lifeful to get back into. it's been awhile since i read it. it is because of the movie coming out, with my family, we are reading a very timely but. >> tell us what you're reading this summer. sent as a tweet etch book tv. >> next on book tv, jackie gingrich, former of house speaker newt gingrich, discusses her book, the essential american on the most significant document since beaches. this is about 40 minutes. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. also, thank you very much and thank you to everyone here. i appreciate your time and i appreciate your taking the time this afternoon and coming. i hope it will be an interesting conversation. it really is a thrill to be here in the reagan house office building because my first memories of this building were in the 70's. as you can imagine, the 70's, i was a young girl. i would run up and down the corridors. by then you could take the elevators down and go through the tunnels without security. many times i would get lost and pop back up some or else within the library of congress or over at the capitol building. really, this is where i spent a lot of my time going out. from the it is a particular thrill to be back in the rayburn house office. thank you for having me here. really quite an honor. in terms of where i am, i would give you a little bit of background about my personal

background, my journey to the book, and why i think particularly at this point in our nation's history why this book and why our founding documents and the history of our nation are so very important. we really are, i think, a really a very important crossroads at this country and we will have to figure out in the and who we are as a country, what we believe in. that is the pattern. and i think the best place to start for that is to look at our documents and history. that is really what drove "the essential american." again, i would like to say, especially for the policy group, i have a great little story. i was telling a friend that i was coming year. for those that might know dana, i've known them for over a decade. she worked for my father at the american enterprise institute. she actually got that job because she came to washington to look for a job, came to one of these